Holloway et al v. Lott et al

Filing 9

ORDER finding that Mashan Lee and Emmanuel Scott should be removed from the Court's docket as Plaintiffs in the instant case, and their names terminated as parties to this action. Signed by Judge G. Thomas Eisele on 10/16/2008. (thd)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION CHARMMORCUS HOLLOWAY, SR. ADC # 523608 and EMMANUEL D. SCOTT and MASHAN LEE V. Case No. 4:08CV00821 GTE PLAINTIFFS WES LOTT, Officer, Little Rock Police Department; JASON HARRIS, Officer, Little Rock Police Department; MACRICE SANDERS, Little Rock Police Department; and ALICE WALTON, Little Rock Police Department ORDE R DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs initiated this 1983 action by filing a Complaint (docket entry #2) alleging excessive force against Plaintiff Holloway, who was bitten by a police dog during an arrest. The Complaint appeared to list Mashan Lee and Emmanuel Scott as Plaintiffs along with Plaintiff Holloway, although no facts were alleged that indicated that they had any claims in the action described. In an Order dated August 15, 2008 (docket entry #4), Lee and Scott were directed to submit Amended Complaints and In Forma Pauperis applications. On September 3, 2008, Plaintiff Holloway submitted several documents to the Court as exhibits in support of his Complaint (docket entry #6) and included a note: "Mashan Lee and Emmanuel Scott were witnesses. Not Plaintiffs." Neither Mashan Lee nor Emmanuel Scott have submitted Amended Complaints or In Forma Pauperis applications. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that Mashan Lee and Emmanuel Scott should be removed from the Court's docket as Plaintiffs in the instant case, and their names terminated as parties to this action. IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of October, 2008. _/s/Garnett Thomas Eisele___________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?